I also have the E-10 and I try to avoid trusting it for WB and fine exposure adjustments. It is rather blue - about the difference between 6500K and 5500K and for the exposure I prefer the histogram.
I don't understand what you mean. A professional uses whatever equipment he needs to accomplish his objective. If he is climbing to the top of Mt. Everest he may carry only a Canon Rebel. If a feature can be useful in getting the photo as he envisions it then it is "professional".
Did not suggest a sepia tone feature.
I did not compare a DSLR to a consumer digi-cam. It just happens to be a fact that consumer digicams have preview LCDs as they are easier to implement when you do not have an optical through the lens viewfinder.
I did not mention MPG/AVI capture. LCD preview can be a very useful feature for a photographer to get the result he/she envisions.
You can not preview the final picture in your Optical Viewfinder without a great deal of visualization of how the final result will differ because of the way the human eye/mind views a two dimensional picture. An LCD can help with that visualization and a preview can help even moreWhy look at a low res 5 fps LCD when you can "preview" the shot
through a highspeed/analog/realtime/billion pixel lense?and
save your battery....
I'm not sure what you are saying here, but I did not suggest holding the camera out and using your LCD to take the photo. Remember, you still have your optical viewfinder (in that "professiional" camera) to for final compositon and actuallt taking the photo.
I owned a Hassy and currently own a manual focus Pentax 645 and you are right they cost thousands more than a point and shoot. Whatever, that has to do with what I suggested. I assume all you Canon EOS1 owners are going back to manual focus. Your point is valid in one sense. I have seen better photos taken with a point and shoot then some photos I have seen with medium format cameras.Many professional grade devices often lack the "bells and whistles'
found on consumer grade devices(not just cameras).
IF professionals really needed (not wanted) this feature it would
be there. The ONLY place where this might be useful in a PJ in a
crowd holding his/her camera over the crowd, be then most LCD
screens don't fold down, only up. Anywho, in this situtation the PJ
relies on the wide angle lens and (more importantly) his/her
experience
Heck, worse than that, look back BEFORE the days of digi when some
of the most expensive Hassy MF bodies and lenses were(still are)
manual focus and exposure! and they cost literally thousands more
than a fully automatic 3x point and shoot Olympus.
I don't use preview with my Pentax 645!
You may well be right. I don't have the technical background and thought it would be simpler.
That was how I was using it too. Lately I have been using it for exposure in certain situations and for white balance. I find as I cycle through the setting it helps me visualize the final result.
Not sure why, but it seems to work.
Here, I want some on the spot input rather than trying to get what I wanted from memory.
This is what I have started calling "digital crutch" Not that long ago (1-2 years we had to wait hours to see an image (remember film). That is why it is about the photographers skill, we do still have skill, don't we? Apply solid photographic techniques and acquired experience and ther shouldn't be a problem...besides you see results in a split second anyway. It is digital if the snow is blue after the first shot, tweak it.
True, but it does not hurt if technology can help you. After all, most photographers could not paint a picture and yet some who can't can still create art in a photograph with the aid of a camera.
It's an interesting idea, but I see some problems with it. You'd need some optics to focus the image on the preview sensor and then you'd need to trade off preview brightness against viewfinder brightness. I suspect you'd either have a dim viewfinder or a dim LCD.
I am sorry, I was talking about professional digital cameras not consumer units.--Greg GebhardtJacksonville, Florida
I was aware of this when I typed my response.
The point is that the light hitting the secondary image sensor would need to be bright enough to produce an acceptable image for the viewer, not just bright enough for the autofocus mechanism to work. You can't get something for nothing. Whatever light you give to the proposed secondary preview sensor comes at the expense of the viewfinder.
The AF sensor on modern EOS cameras catches light from a central area of the the miiror which is then reflected through a series of mirrors and a secondary splitting lens onto an area CCD which is used for phase detection autofocusing.
